Hawking claims that life can form by chance

Aliens probably do exist says top cosmologist

Published: 13 October 2010(GMT+10)

Photo NASA

Stephen Hawking

Stephen Hawking was, for thirty years, Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge
University, and is one of the world’s foremost cosmologists. He regularly
features in popular science television programmes, and his phenomenally successful
book, A Brief History of Time, has over nine million copies in print.1 His latest book The Grand Design
declares that no creator was necessary (see
detailed refutation).

In one of his most recent broadcasts, Stephen Hawking’s universe,2 he unequivocally subscribes
to the view that extraterrestrials are probably common place. Since our galaxy is
just one of 100 billion, he argues, “the numbers alone make thinking about
aliens perfectly rational.” Indeed, he claims, “Stars Wars
and Star Trek … may be closer to reality than we think …
in our vast, ancient universe, almost any form that is physically possible is likely
to exist or have existed somewhere.”

Hawking offers two explanations as to how life might have begun on Earth. The first
is that this happened by accident—that random collisions of amino acids in
a primordial soup, over millions of years, just happened to produce the right combination
of molecules. This he describes as “the ultimate, lucky break that started
the chain of life.” In making this statement, he demonstrates that he is unaware
of the simple chemical fact that amino acids in a soup would not spontaneously link
up; rather, any chains would break down—see
Origin of life: the polymerization problem. Furthermore, there are
other components of any primordial soup that would block chains from growing or
destroy the amino acids. But this article is concerned mainly with his probability
fallacies.

Although he accepts that the chance of life arising spontaneously is very small,
he does not feel that this is a problem for this theory. “It’s like
winning a lottery” he claims. “Although the odds are astronomical, most
weeks, someone hits the jackpot.”

Given Hawking’s mathematical background, his treatment of the probability of life beginning in the way he suggests is astonishing. Moreover, his confusing the issue with a lottery beggars belief.

Given Hawking’s mathematical background, his treatment of the probability
of life beginning in the way he suggests is astonishing. Moreover, his confusing
the issue with a lottery beggars belief. In a typical lottery, with say a million
participants, where each person buys just one ticket and the winning number is drawn
from the numbers purchased, the probability of a particular participant winning
is one in a million. However the probability that there will be a
winner is one (a guaranteed certainty!). There is no certainty that life will arise
from a pool of amino acids. Hawking is really just ‘cheating
with chance’. Other lotteries are organised slightly differently,
and it is possible that the winning number will not have been purchased. However,
the fact that “most weeks, someone hits the jackpot” shows that there
is still a high probability of someone winning.

For life to begin through the random shuffling of chemicals in a primordial soup,
many exceedingly unlikely events must take place. Not just one, but many particular
combinations of molecules must be formed. The probability of just one protein forming
from amino acids is tiny. The probability of many forming is too small to be considered
credible. Let’s have a look at a few simple calculations.

As everyone knows, the probability of tossing a coin and it landing ‘heads
up’ is 1 in 2 (i.e. 0.5). The probability of two coins landing ‘heads
up’ is 1 in 4 (i.e. 0.52 = 0.25). The probability of three coins
landing ‘heads up’ is 1 in 8 (i.e. 0.53
= 0.125). The probability of a hundred coins landing ‘heads up’ is 0.5100, that is around 1 in 1030. (1030 is 1 followed by 30 zeroes.)
A similar calculation might be made for amino acids forming proteins (the building
blocks of life).

Diagram of chirality.

Amino acids (except the simplest, glycine) come in two forms—‘left-handed’
and ‘right-handed’. This is known as chirality (see diagram, right). For a
number of amino acids to form a functional protein, they must all be like-handed
(or homochiral). In actual fact, proteins in living organisms have all left-handed
amino acids. For a short protein of only 100 amino acids, the probability of this
occurring is the same as a hundred coins landing ‘heads up’, i.e. 1
in 1030. (The homochirality problem is even more acute for RNA and DNA,
which contain all right-handed sugars. One wrong-handed molecule can disrupt replication
by terminating the growing chain.)

The minimum number of proteins required to assemble a working, self-replicating
cell is estimated to be at least 387 (see
How simple can life be?). Let us be particularly generous to evolution
theory and say that only 300 are required. What is the probability of 300 amino
acid chains arising with the characteristics outlined above? Again, the calculation
is easy. It is 1 in 10(30 x 300), i.e. 1 in 109,000.

But what about Hawking’s point that our galaxy is just one of 100 billion?
Given the many, many billions of planets that exist and the alleged 14 or 15 billion
years that the universe has been around, surely it’s reasonable to believe
that life evolved on at least a few of these planets?

Let us do some more basic calculations. 1 in 109,000 is the probability
of tossing a set of 29,897 coins and all of them landing ‘heads up’
(because 0.529,897 = 10–9,000, i.e. 1 in 109,000). Supposing
every atom in the universe (of which there are an estimated 1080) turned
into a machine capable of tossing a set of 29,897 coins all at once, a billion times
each second. How many sets of 29,897 coins could we toss in the alleged 15 billion
years the universe has existed?

The chances of achieving something with a probability of 10–9,000 when
10107 attempts are made is 10–9,000 x 10107 = 10–8,893, i.e. 1 in 1 followed by 8,893 zeroes. This is such an unimaginably small fraction
that the idea of proteins forming by random collisions of amino acids to form a
living, self-replicating cell may be seen to be utterly, utterly implausible.

Evolutionists themselves have admitted that ‘The activation of amino acids and the formation of peptides under primordial conditions is one of the great riddles of the origin of life.’

Moreover, this is just the beginning of the problems for these kinds of origin of
life scenarios.3 For example, not only do the amino acids have to be
like-handed, they must bond to each other in a particular way—that is, they
must form ‘peptide bonds’. Even in a specially prepared protected environment
(in a test tube), experiments indicate that there is only a 1 in 2 chance of this
happening with each amino acid. Hence, the probability of 100 amino acids coming
together by chance, all having the same handedness and all forming peptide
bonds, is around 1 in 1060.4 Chemists who make proteins actually
block non-peptide reaction sites with “protecting groups”, then remove
those after the reaction (and they exclude water and any alkali).5 The
primordial soup didn’t have such helpful chemists around. Indeed, evolutionists
themselves have admitted that “The activation of amino acids and the formation
of peptides under primordial conditions is one of the great riddles of the origin
of life.”6

Furthermore, there are any one of 20 types of amino acid that could assemble themselves
in any of the 100 positions along the chain. Hence, there are 20100 =
10130 ways that the protein could form. Only a very small fraction of
these would form the functional proteins needed to get the simplest biological cell
going.7 Further to this, a self replicating cell would require other
complex molecules such as RNA/DNA—and there are similar problems with handedness,
as mentioned above, as well as with linking up at all, let alone in the right way,
and obtaining the right sequence (see
Evolutionist criticisms of the RNA World conjecture). No wonder the
Nobel Prize-winner, Jacques Monod, argued that the probability of life emerging
by random processes is so small that it might be considered to be “zero”.8

Hawking’s conviction that evolution is true appears to be more intuitive than
scientific. “In such a massive place as the cosmos,” he opines, “we
only have to look at ourselves for proof that extremely unlikely things can and
do happen all the time.” In other words, whatever the difficulties in explaining
evolution, the existence of humans is proof that it can happen. Talk about begging
the question!9

Many evolutionists have now abandoned pure chance as an explanation for life’s
origin. They tend to favour the idea that currently unobserved natural laws exist
which caused functional proteins and RNA/DNA molecules to form. They believe that,
if they continue their research, they will discover these laws.10 But this is a faith, as evolutionary information
theorist Hubert
Yockey admitted. Of course, belief in biblical creation is also a faith.
However, unlike Hawking’s origin of life scenarios, Christianity is
supported by real historical evidence.

Huber, C. and Wächtershäuser, G., Peptides by activation
of amino acids with CO on (Ni,Fe)S surfaces: implications for the origin of life.
Science281(5377):670–672, 1998. Return
to text.

According to the molecular biologist, Douglas Axe, less than
1 in 1074 of the all possible amino acid sequences would produce the required proteins.
Cited by Meyer, S.C., The signature in the cell: DNA and the evidence for
intelligent design, p. 210, HarperCollins, New York, 2009. Return
to text.

Popper, K.R., Scientific Reduction and the Essential Incompleteness
of all Science; in Ayala, F.J., and Dobzhansky, T., eds, Studies in the Philosophy
of Biology, Macmillan Press, London, p. 270, 1974. Return to text.

“Beg the question” does not mean “raise
the question”; rather, it is an informal logical fallacy whereby a conclusion
to be proved is assumed in the premise, aka circular reasoning. The question should
be whether life arose by chance, but Hawking ‘begs’ (assumes) that humans
arose by chance, and then uses the existence of humans as proof of the affirmative.
Return to text.